-API-579.pdf

API 579

An Introduction to API RP 579: Section 9 Assessment of Crack Like Flaws

Introduction

API 579

• Classical engineering design – applied stress : material resistance – component is defect-free

• Possible presence of defects – casting, welding, forming, develop during operation

• Fitness for Service (FFS) procedure – – – – – –

8/19/2014

Determining the residual life of damaged plant Ensuring safe operation beyond design life Down-rating damaged plant below design Demonstrating tolerance to defects within a safety case Extending inspection intervals Reducing duration of outage and shutdown

2

Codes

API 579

• API: American Petroleum Industry • API Codes and Standards for: – design, fabrication, inspection and testing of new pressure vessels, piping systems and storage tanks • do not address the fact that equipment degrades while inservice • deficiencies due to degradation or from original fabrication may be found during subsequent inspections.

• Can be applied to other industries • API Codes – – – –

API API API API

510: 570: 653: 580:

Pressure vessel inspection code Piping inspection code Tank inspection code Risk based inspection

• API 579 8/19/2014

3

API 579

API 579 • to ensure safety:plant personnel, public • to provide sound FFS assessment procedures • to ensure consistent remaining life predictions • to enhance long-term economic viability

8/19/2014

4

API 579

API 579 • API's Recommended Practice 579 for FFS • API 579 can be used to make run-repairreplace decisions • The 1,000-page document is organized into modules • Each section is based on a type of flaw or damage, such as crack-like flaws • The document is primarily aimed at the petrochemical industry • types of damage listed seen in petrochemical applications – they are present in other industries

8/19/2014

5

Overview of Damage Assessment Procedures

API 579

Section

8/19/2014

1

Introduction and Scope

2

Outline of Overall Methodology

3

Brittle Fracture

4

General Metal Loss

5

Local Metal Loss

6

Pitting Corrosion

7

Blisters and Laminations

8

Weld Misalignments and Shell Distortions

9

Crack Like Flaws

10

High Temp. Operation and Creep

11

Fire Damage

6

Methodology for All Damage Types

API 579

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8/19/2014

Flaw and damage mechanism identification Applicability and limitations of the FFS assessment procedures Data requirements Assessment techniques and acceptance criteria Remaining life evaluation

Remediation In-service monitoring Documentation 7

Assessment Levels

API 579

• Three levels of assessment for each flaw and damage type – Level 1 to 3

• Assessment level – – – –

Conservatism Amount of information required Skill of the assessor Complexity of analysis

• Level 1 – NDE inspector

• Level 2 – Plant Engineer

• Level 3 – FFS Expert 8/19/2014

8

API 579

API 579 Section 9 - ASSESSMENT OF CRACK-LIKE FLAWS • FFS for crack like flaws • Based on Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) method • Crack like flaws observed from inspection: – planar flaws – Length, depth, sharp root radius – Conservative to treat volumetric flaws as cracks • Micro-cracks at root

• Relative flaw tolerance at design stage – Risk to fracture – a/t = 25%, length = 6a 8/19/2014

9

API 579

Applicability and Limitations of the Procedure • Level 1 and 2 – Original Design Criteria – Operating temperature less than Creep range – Dynamic Loading effects not significant – No in-service crack growth

8/19/2014

10

API 579

Applicability and Limitations of the Procedure : Level 1 • Geometries – – – –

Flat plate, cylinder or sphere R/t > 5 t < 38 mm Away from major structural discontinuity

• Loads – Only membrane stress field, within design limits

• Material – C-Steel with specified max. tensile prop. And min. fracture properties 8/19/2014

11

API 579

Data Requirement • Original Equipment Design Data • Maintenance and equipment history • Loads and stresses • Material properties • Flaw Characterization • Recommendation for inspection techniques

8/19/2014

12

Flaw Characterization

API 579

• Simple geometry, amenable for fracture mechanics analysis • Objective is to get a crack of conservative size in plane  to maximum principal stress direction • Cracks from inspection: – – – – 8/19/2014

irregular in shape arbitrarily oriented multiple cracks branched cracks 13

API 579

Flaw Characterization (Shape)

Through Wall Flaw

Surface Flaw

8/19/2014

Embedded Flaw

14

API 579

Flaw Characterization (length) when flaw is not normal to principal stress direction • Conservative Option – Co (measured length), C (length used in calculations, normal to max. stresses) – Take C = Co

• Equivalent flaw length – Inclined cracks -> align itself perpendicular to the applied stress – Mixed mode to Mode I crack – Equivalent Mode I from energy considerations

8/19/2014

15

API 579

Flaw Characterization (Length)

c  c0 f 1 ,  2 ,   8/19/2014

16

API 579

Flaw Characterization (depth)

• Depth difficult to measure • A. Flaw depth by default values – Through wall flaw, a = t, – Surface flaw, a  min t , c length=2c

• B. Flaw depth from actual measurements – Normal flaw, a=ao 8/19/2014

17

API 579

Flaw Characterization (Depth)

a  aoW   8/19/2014

18

API 579

8/19/2014

Flaw Characterization (Branch Crack)

19

API 579

8/19/2014

Flaw Characterization (Multiple Cracks)

20

API 579

Level 1 Analysis

• STEP 1 – Determine the load cases and temperatures: operating and design conditions. • STEP 2 – Determine the length and depth of the crack: characterize • STEP 3 – Determine the case from the list below o o o o

Flat Plate, Crack-Like Flaw Parallel To Joint Cylinder, Longitudinal Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Parallel To Joint Cylinder, Longitudinal Joint, Crack-Like Perpendicular To Joint Cylinder, Circumferential Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Parallel To Joint o Cylinder, Circumferential Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Perpendicular To Joint o Sphere, Circumferential Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Parallel To Joint o Sphere, Circumferential Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Perpendicular To Joint 8/19/2014

21

API 579

Level 1 analysis

Tref = use 38oC (material specific can also be obtained from Section 3) At Tref +33o Cv = 68J, l.e. >.89mm

¼ t, flaw t flaw

8/19/2014

A – flaw in base metal. B –flaw in weld metal that has been subject to PWHT. C –flaw in weld metal that has not been subject to PWHT

22

API 579

Failure Assessment Diagram Kr  f  Lr 

KI K  K mat  ref ' Lr   ys ' r

8/19/2014

23

API 579

Advantages of FAD • Double criteria approach: – Fracture • LEFM • EPFM

– Collapse

• Elasto-Plastic Fracture Mechanics: – J-Integral calculation not required

8/19/2014

24

Level 2 Analysis

API 579

• If the component does not meet the Level 1 Assessment requirements then a Level 2 or Level 3 Assessment can be done. • Method A: Using partial safety factors – – – – 8/19/2014

Factor for applied loading Factor for material toughness Factor for flaw dimensions Based on probabilistic methods 25

API 579

Level 2 Analysis 1– Evaluate operating conditions and determine the pressure, temperature and loading combinations to be evaluated. 2–Stress distributions at the location of the flaw. Classify Primary stress Secondary stress Residual stress

Appendix E of API 579 contains a compendium of residual stress distributions for various weld geometries 3 – Determine the material properties yield strength tensile strength fracture toughness 8/19/2014

26

API 579

Level 2 Analysis • Appendix F of API 579 contains information on material properties, including toughness • Appendix does not contain a database of toughness values • It provides correlations and estimation methods • For ferritic steels, there are lower-bound correlations of toughness to Charpy transition temperature – From Sections III and XI of the ASME boiler and pressure vessel code

8/19/2014

27

API 579

Level 2 Analysis

API 579 endorses the use of the fracture toughness Master Curve, as implemented in ASTM Standard E 1921-97 4 – Determine the crack dimensions: characterize 5 – Modify the primary stress, material fracture toughness, and flaw size using the Partial Safety Factors ( PSF )

Pm  Pm .PSFS Pb  Pb .PSFS

8/19/2014

K mat

K mat  PSFk

a  a.PSFa

28

API 579

Need for Partial safety Factors (PSF) Consider a Design R = L1 + L2 + L3 Let the factor of safety be 1.5 Thus: R/(L1+L2+L3) = 1.5 1.5 to account for scatter in R, L Probability of failure P(R < [L1+L2+L3])

8/19/2014

29

API 579

Estimating the Probability of failure Let all the variables R, L1, L2, L3 follow a normal distribution. Coeff. Of Var (/ m) R L1 L2 L3

8/19/2014

0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 30

Reliability Index

API 579

The reliability index is given by



m R  m1  m 2  m 3      2 R

2 1

2 2

2 3

Now we will try to estimate probability of failure for different load combinations 8/19/2014

31

API 579

mR = 300 Global Factor of safety = 1.5 i.e. mR/Sm = 1.5 m1

m2

m3

Sm

Pf

200

0

0

200

2.8x10-3

0

200

0

200

2.3x10-3

0

0

200

200

6.8x10-2

Need for safety factors (PSF) on each component of load for consistent Reliability R/f = f1.L1 + f2.L2 + f3.L3 PSF ensures guaranteed lower bound reliability 8/19/2014

32

API 579

Partial safety Factors Brittle

8/19/2014

Ductile

33

API 579

Level 2 Analysis

6 – Compute the reference stress for primary stresses –reference stress solutions: Appendix D

7 – Compute the Load Ratio

p  ref Lrp  y

8 – Compute the stress intensity attributed to the primary loads 9 – Compute the reference stress for secondary and residual stresses (used for F) 10 – Compute the stress intensity attributed to the secondary and residual stresses 11 – Compute the plasticity interaction factor, F in presence of secondary loads 8/19/2014

34

Level 2 Analysis

API 579

12 – Determine toughness ratio 13 – Evaluate results on FAD



K r  1  0.14  LPr  8/19/2014

2



K IP  FK ISR Kr  K mat



6 0.3  0.7 exp 0.65  LPr   for LPr  LPr (max)   35

Level 2 Analysis

API 579

If Partial safety Factors are not used

Kr

0.7

0 0

8/19/2014

0.2

0.4

Lr

0.6

0.8

1

36

API 579

Residual Stress Profiles • Listed in Appendix E of API 579 Section 9 • Residual stress distributions are provided for the following weld joint configurations – Full Penetration Welds in Piping and Pressure Vessel Cylindrical Shells – Full Penetration Welds in Spheres and Pressure Vessel Heads – Full Penetration Welds in Storage Tanks – Full Penetration and Fillet Welds at Corner Joints – Fillet Welds at Tee Joints – Repair Welds

8/19/2014

37

Residual stress profiles

API 579

• Based on upper bound values of the extensive numerical analyses and a literature survey of published results • Residual stress distributions are provided for both the as-welded and PWHT conditions • Distinction is not made concerning the material of construction – – – – –

8/19/2014

Weld joint geometry Single V-Type Double V-Type Fillet welds Repair welds

38

Data required

API 579

• • • • •

The material specification The material specified minimum yield strength The wall thickness of the component The heat input used to make the weld The type of weld (i.e. girth or circumferential joint, longitudinal seam, repair weld, or attachment weld) • The weld joint configuration (i.e. single Vgroove, double V-groove, corner joint, fillet weld, or repair weld) • Procedures aimed at reducing the residual stress level

8/19/2014

– hydrotest to 150% of the maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP)per the ASME Code, Section VIII, – post weld heat treatment per the original construction code

39

Level 3 Analysis

API 579

Method A Assessment –Level 2 the FAD with user

specified Partial Safety Factors based on a risk assessment Method B Assessment – FAD is constructed based on the actual material properties P 3  E  Lr   ys K r  LPr    P ref   Lr  ys 2 E ref 

K r  LPr   1

   

1 2

for 0.0  LPr  LPr (max) for LPr  0

 t  1   es   es  t  ln 1   es  Where subscripts t = true, es = engineering 8/19/2014

40

API 579

Level 3 Analysis Method C Assessment –FAD is constructed based on the actual loading conditions, component geometry and material properties Kr 

J elastic J total

Method D Assessment – This method is a

ductile tearing analysis where the fracture tearing resistance is defined as a function of the amount of stable ductile tearing 8/19/2014

41

Level 3 Analysis

API 579

• Method E Assessment – The recognized assessment procedures listed below are subject to supplemental requirements that may include the use of Partial Safety Factors or a probabilistic analysis. • • • • • • • 8/19/2014

BS PD6493 or BS 7910 Nuclear Electric R-6 SAQ/FoU Report 96/08 WES 2805 – 1997 DPFAD Methodology EPFM using the J-integral The J-integral-Tearing Modulus method 42

API 579

Remaining Life Assessment (RLA) • Sub-critical Crack Growth – – – –

Crack growth by fatigue Crack growth by stress corrosion cracking Crack growth by hydrogen assisted cracking Crack growth by corrosion fatigue

• Growth of a pre-existing crack is controlled by a crack tip stress intensity factor • Laws for crack growth rates for these mechanisms have been provided in Appendix F

8/19/2014

43

API 579

Difficulties in RLA • Crack growth rates can be highly sensitive to changes in the process environment – Models are fitted in carefully controlled conditions in a laboratory experiment

• Cracking often occurs as the result of an upset in operating conditions – Average crack growth rate would be meaningless in such instances

• New cracks can initiate at other locations in the structure 8/19/2014

44

API 579

Procedure for RLA 1 – Perform a Level 3 assessment for the initial crack size If the component is acceptable apply remedial measures to prevent further crack growth

2 – If effective remedial measures are not possible and slow sub-critical crack growth is expected If a crack growth law exists for the material and service environment: a crack growth analysis can be performed else, a leak-before break analysis should be performed 8/19/2014

45

API 579

Procedure for RLA 3 – Compute the stress at the flaw based on the future operating conditions 4 – Determine an increment in crack growth 5 – Perform a Level 3 assessment for the current crack size If the assessment point is outside of the FAD or the crack is re-categorized as a through-wall crack, then go to STEP 6; otherwise, go to STEP 4 and continue to grow the crack

8/19/2014

46

API 579

Procedure for RLA 6 – Determine the time or number of stress cycles for the current crack size (ao, co) to reach the limiting flaw size Acceptable if time to reach the limiting flaw size,with FOS, is more than the required operating period If the depth of the limiting flaw size is re-categorized as a through-wall thickness crack, the conditions for an acceptable leak before break (LBB) criteria should be satisfied

7 – At the next inspection, establish the actual crack growth rate, and re-evaluate the new flaw conditions. Alternatively, repair or replace the component or apply effective mitigation measures 8/19/2014

47

API 579

LBB Procedure It may be possible to show that a flaw can grow through the wall of a component without causing a catastrophic failure In such cases, a leak can be detected (taking into consideration the contained fluid and type of insulation) and remedial action could be initiated to avoid a component failure

8/19/2014

48

API 579

8/19/2014

Leak Before Break

49

API 579

LBB Procedure Limitations The leak should be readily detectable Insulation Tight crack Contained fluid

The LBB methodology may not be suitable for flaws near stress concentrations or regions of high residual stress 8/19/2014

50

API 579

LBB Limitations Flaw at a stress concentration

Flaw subjected to high residual stresses

Flaw growth in predominantly length direction 8/19/2014

51

API 579

LBB Limitations Crack growth rate high Adequate time must be available to discover the leak and take the necessary action

Possible adverse consequences of developing a leak hazardous materials fluids operating below their boiling point fluids operating above their auto-ignition temperature 8/19/2014

52

API 579

LBB Procedure 1 –Demonstrate that the largest initial flaw size left in the structure will not lead to fracture during the life of the component. 2 –Determine the largest (critical) crack length of a full through-wall crack below which catastrophic rupture will not occur for all applicable load cases. 3 – Compute the corresponding leak areas associated with the critical crack lengths 4 – Determine the leakage rate associated with the crack area computed above, and demonstrate that the associated leaks are detectable with the selected leak detection system

8/19/2014

53

API 579

8/19/2014

Remediation • Method 1 – Removal or repair of the crack. The crack may be removed by blend grinding • Method 2 – Use of a crack arresting detail or device • Method 3 – Performing physical changes to the process stream • Method 4 – Application of solid barrier linings or coatings to keep the environment isolated from the base metal • Method 5 – Injection of water and/or chemicals on a continuous basis to modify the environment or the surface of the metal • Method 6 – Application of weld overlay • Method 7 – Use of leak monitoring and leak-sealing devices

54

API 579

In-service monitoring In all cases where sub-critical in-service crack growth is permitted – in-service monitoring or – monitoring at a shutdown inspection of the crack growth by NDE is required. The applicable NDE method will depend on the specific case.

8/19/2014

55

Example Calculation

API 579

• • • • • • • • • 8/19/2014

A plate of SA 516 Grade 70 steel Edge crack, depth ‘a’ = 0.5 inch Width of plate ‘W’ = 5 inch Thickness ‘B’ = 1.25 inch Service temp.’T’ = 100o F Axial Load ‘F’ = 240 kips Yield stress ‘Sy’ = 38 ksi Toughness not known Safe ? Using a Level 2 analysis 56

API 579

Solution • Kc, from Table 3.3 of API 579, Tref = 40o F

8/19/2014

57

API 579

8/19/2014

Solution

58

FAD

API 579

Example of Level 2 FAD 0.8 (1.12, 0.559)

Kr

0.6

Load = 171 kips

0.4 0.2 0 0

8/19/2014

0.2

0.4

0.6 Lr

0.8

1

1.2

59

API 579

Thank You

8/19/2014

60